[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 20505-20509]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Chile and 
Singapore free-trade agreements that are currently before this body. If 
these agreements were similar to earlier free-trade agreements voted on 
by this body--NAFTA, Israel, Jordan--I would have absolutely no 
difficulty whatsoever casting votes in favor of both. That, however, is 
not the case. These agreements are not your garden-variety free-trade 
agreements. In fact, these two agreements break new ground with the 
inclusion of specialized immigration provisions which weaken existing 
legal safeguards against U.S. employers displacing American workers 
with lower wage nonimmigrant visa holders.
  I thank immensely the Presiding Officer who held a very worthwhile 
hearing just a day or so ago in the Judiciary Committee on one of these 
visa provisions, the L-1 visa issue. I thank him immensely for giving 
me an opportunity to address my concerns about some of the loopholes in 
that particular agreement.
  I want to draw my colleagues' attention that I have rarely, if ever, 
voted against a free-trade agreement. I have been a strong supporter of 
free trade, but I must caution my colleagues about what is in these two 
agreements that were never a part, as I understood it, of the trade 
laws but rather add immigration provisions which I think go far beyond 
what many of us intended to be the case.
  My concern is, despite some very good provisions in both the Chile 
and Singapore agreements, we are breaking new ground which I think we 
will come to regret with some 30 other bilateral free-trade agreements 
pending before this body that will be voted up or down without any 
amendments being offered which is a result of the fast-track authority 
which this body endorsed only a number of months ago.
  This is but one more example of the troubling pattern of 
insensitivity to the concerns of American workers that our trade 
representatives not negotiate away their jobs in the name of free 
trade. U.S. negotiators have, in effect, been doing so by ignoring the 
labor practices and policies of our trading partners in the context of 
including new trade agreements and by not addressing the linkage that 
exists between foreign labor markets and the ability of American 
workers to remain internationally competitive.
  One year ago, the Senate voted to give the President trade promotion 
authority allowing him to negotiate additional trade agreements and 
limiting the Congress to an up-or-down vote on each trade agreement 
without the ability to amend them.
  Breaking with my normal practice with respect to such legislation, I 
decided to oppose final passage of that bill. I did so because I did 
not think the legislation included adequate language making it crystal 
clear that a primary negotiating objective of future trade agreements 
must be to ensure that as a condition of the U.S. signing such 
agreements with other governments, those governments must live up to 
recognized international labor organizations' standards with respect to 
wages and other workers' rights.
  During the so-called fast-track debate, I offered an amendment that 
would have required fast-track authority to be in parity with the 
Jordan standards, a trade agreement that passed 100 to 0 in this body 
only a few months earlier.
  I thought, with Congress poised to renew Presidential fast-track 
authority, it was more important than ever that with the discretion 
being granted to the President to negotiate trade agreements, an 
obligation to uphold universally recognized labor standards in those 
agreements be part of the deal.
  Because the language included in the Jordan Trade Agreement dealt 
effectively with that matter, it made perfect sense, since we had voted 
100 to 0 to endorse it, to include similar language as part of future 
agreements.
  The administration disagreed with that approach and my amendment was 
defeated. Under those circumstances, I had no choice but to vote 
against final passage of the permanent trade authority legislation, and 
did so with regret.
  At the time of the vote, I urged the administration to take note of 
the vote by someone who was normally a strong supporter of free-trade 
agreements and

[[Page 20506]]

understand it was an expression of deep concerns that poorly crafted 
free-trade agreements will undermine our economy and the prosperity of 
working American families.
  I was amazed that the concerns expressed by the American workers 
during the debate of the permanent trade authority legislation had been 
so quickly confirmed with respect to the first two agreements that this 
administration had sent to Congress since the FTA became law. There are 
likely to be as many as 30 free-trade agreements negotiated utilizing 
this extraordinary authority.
  I have been a strong proponent of entering a bilateral trade 
agreement with Chile for many years. I am extremely disappointed that 
provisions that should not be in this agreement have been included. In 
all the years the proposal for a free-trade agreement with Chile has 
been discussed, there was never, ever--never--any mention of 
nonimmigrant visa provisions being included as part of a final 
agreement.
  I recognize there are many features of the Chile and Singapore 
agreements that will promote a freer flow of goods and services between 
the United States and Chile and Singapore. The agreements include 
comprehensive commitments by Chile and Singapore to open their 
agricultural, service, and overall markets to the United States. That 
is great news, indeed.
  Were those the only provisions we were considering today, I would, 
with enthusiasm, endorse and support these two agreements. But there 
are other provisions in these agreements that my colleagues ought to 
pay attention to, which have gotten very little attention at all. It is 
those provisions I am concerned about because they are steps in the 
wrong direction with respect to protecting American jobs in my State 
and elsewhere across this country.
  I would predict there are Members of this body who are unaware that 
these agreements will allow as many as 1,500 nonimmigrant visa holders 
from Chile and 5,400 from Singapore to be hired each year by U.S. 
employers, without those employers first having made a good-faith 
effort to fill the vacancies with American workers. These agreements 
will make it easy for U.S. employers to employ temporary workers from 
those two countries with little or no oversight by the Department of 
Labor. Moreover, once enacted into law, these provisions will have the 
effect of undermining the intent of our nonimmigrant visa programs--
namely, that they be temporary in nature--by allowing Chilean and 
Singaporean visa holders to renew their visas for an indefinite period 
of time.
  These provisions are not in the interest of hard-working Americans 
who currently find themselves out of work or in fear that they will 
find themselves unemployed at a moment's notice.
  With the unemployment rate at 6.4 percent, and more than 9 million 
people in this country unemployed, I think we have a responsibility to 
enact policies that will bring about more job opportunities for U.S. 
workers instead of making it easier for additional workers to lose 
their jobs to lower-wage nonimmigrant visa holders.
  The U.S. Trade Representative has not demonstrated, in my view, the 
inclusion of these provisions as central to the effectiveness of these 
agreements. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that laws 
governing the H-1B and L-1 visa programs pose barriers to trade or 
undermine our ability to meet our obligations in these trade 
agreements. I will never understand why the Bush administration used 
the opportunity of these trade agreements to actually weaken the laws 
with respect to those two programs, and doing so statutorily.
  At the very time we are debating these pending agreements, critics of 
our existing H-1B and L-1 programs are crying foul. The root of their 
concerns is that current law contains insufficient safeguards against 
the misuse of those programs in ways that cause American workers to be 
displaced from their jobs. Yet the language in the bills before us 
today is even weaker than existing laws in these areas.
  Last week I introduced S. 1452, the U.S. Jobs Protection Act. This 
bill increases the monitoring and enforcement authorities of the 
Department of Labor over the H-1B and L-1 visa programs, and closes 
loopholes in these programs to prevent unintended U.S. job losses. 
These agreements would prevent those reforms from being extended to H-
1B and L-1 visa holders from Chile and Singapore. That is unacceptable, 
and ought to be to many of my colleagues.
  I am extremely concerned unless those of us in this body speak out 
against the inclusion of these immigration provisions in the pending 
agreements, the administration will happily include similar language in 
the other remaining bilateral agreements that will come before this 
body, including the Central American free-trade agreement that is 
currently being negotiated. That would be a terrible mistake. In the 
best of circumstances, the CAFT agreement is going to have difficulty 
being approved next year. It will be dead on arrival, in my judgment, 
if the administration overreaches again in this area.
  Mr. President, I regret the administration has chosen to overstep its 
authority in negotiating these agreements with Chile and Singapore. I 
strongly believe that trade--fair trade--creates new opportunities for 
America's manufacturers and our workers. But as a Member of this body, 
I cannot support a bill that disregards the needs of American workers, 
allows immigrant legislation, migration legislation to be included so 
blatantly in a free-trade agreement, as we try to secure decent-paying 
jobs and keep our unemployment rates down, and offer Americans an 
opportunity.
  It is hard enough to convince them that free-trade agreements are in 
the best interest of the American economy and for the creation of jobs, 
but when you give away, each year, under these two agreements, more 
than 8,000 jobs in this country, without ever having to face anything 
at all, that is wrong.
  If we do not speak up tonight about it, believe me, as I stand here 
before you, you are going to see these provisions included in all of 
the remaining 30 bilateral agreements, and that would be a mistake, in 
my view.
  In a perfect world, I would hope these agreements could be withdrawn 
and resubmitted to the Senate without the inclusion of these 
immigration provisions. However, that is unlikely to happen, obviously. 
For that reason, I am left with no choice but to cast my vote--with 
deep regrets, with deep regrets--in favor of protecting, as I must, 
American working families, who are under tremendous pressure and strain 
today, and against the implementing legislation before us.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold his suggestion?
  Mr. DODD. Withdrawn.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have long supported initiatives to 
expand foreign markets for American goods. Trade liberalizing 
agreements with other countries, if negotiated correctly, can benefit 
American farmers, ranchers and manufacturers. Likewise, strengthening 
economic ties with these countries can advance our foreign policy 
interests. The agreements pending before us today, the Chilean and 
Singaporean Free Trade Agreements, fit both of these criteria, and I 
intend to support them both.
  The agreement with Singapore, our twelfth largest trading partner, is 
the first such FTA with an Asian nation. Singapore is a long-standing 
ally in this vitally important region and has worked closely with the 
United States in the war against terrorism. Currently, for instance, 
Singapore is building an aircraft carrier pier at its port, the largest 
in the world, specifically for U.S. vessels.
  Under this agreement, Singapore will eliminate duties on all U.S. 
products and broadly open its service sector across a wide range of 
industries. These and other commitments, such as strong protection of 
intellectual property rights, will benefit American investors and 
exporters.
  With regard to Chile, I am pleased that after years of much 
anticipation this agreement is finally complete. Chile has stood out as 
one of South

[[Page 20507]]

America's economic leaders for some time, and this agreement will serve 
to solidify our support for its continued progress. Today, Chile has 
free trade arrangements with Canada, Mexico, and the European Union. 
This United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement will provide important 
parity for American exporters. This is very important for wheat growers 
who have lost substantial market share as a result of the Chile-Canada 
trade agreement. Our agreement should provide an opportunity to re-gain 
those exports.
  The issue that has concerned me most is what will the impact be on 
our beef producers. The impact is more complex than the clear advantage 
for wheat farmers. Chile potentially is a consumer market for beef. 
Chile is a substantial importer of beef and the U.S. produces the 
finest beef in the world. The agreement takes important steps to open 
the Chilean beef market to U.S. producers, many of whom are from my 
home State of South Dakota.
  My concern and that of many South Dakota farmers is that beef born 
and raised in Argentina will be sent to Chile for slaughter and be 
labeled as Chilean beef under the existing rules of origin law that 
only requires the product to be slaughtered in a country. After careful 
examination, it is my expectation, however, that the administration 
will prevent such transhipment for other countries in the region and 
protect our own farmers and ranchers from injurious imports from 
abroad.
  Therefore, I believe that on balance the U.S. Chilean agreement is 
good for our beef producers. The agreement is good for our other 
exporters and it advances our foreign policy interests and I support 
it.
  I support the agreements before the Senate today and will vote for 
their passage. I do want to take this opportunity, however, to raise my 
strong concern about a possible trade agreement with Australia.
  Australia has long been one of America's staunchest allies. Our 
shared commitment to freedom and democracy is the foundation of a 
relationship that has grown even stronger since September 11. Indeed, 
Australia was among the first countries to offer its support in the 
wake of terrorist attacks on our country last year. Australia is an 
important American ally and one who we can and should work with closely 
within the WTO multilateral negotiations.
  I am, however, deeply concerned about the effect that a potential 
free trade agreement with Australia could have on our own beef, lamb 
and wool producers.
  Australia is increasingly involved in grain feedlots for cattle. 
Grain feed beef more directly compete with U.S. beef in the higher end 
beef market because of its higher quality. Australian farmers receive 
the benefit of a state trading enterprise, the Australian Wheat Board, 
which manages the supply of all grain in that country, and thus 
influences the price of grain. Ranchers in Australia receive 
assistance, not only from the wheat board, but also receive various 
other subsidies.
  Australia is the world's largest beef exporter and with fewer people 
than cows, the country is not a significant import market. Finally, 
Australian live cattle are increasingly being exported. In fact USDA 
projects that over 900,000 head will be exported in 2003 using, among 
other means, huge ocean-going ships that can deliver up to 25,000 head 
per vessel. As a potential FTA with Australia progresses, I am hopeful 
that we will be able to address these very real concerns. Without some 
remedy, I will not be able to support the agreement.
  With regard to lamb, there are not U.S. tariffs on lamb today. 
Currently one-third of our domestic lamb consumption is imported lamb 
and we are Australia's biggest export market for lamb. The U.S. 
currently takes in 20 percent of all of the lamb Australia produces. 
However, Australia's prices are well below our market, and rather than 
work to develop new markets, most often they come into our best 
markets, and underprice our domestic producers. In fact, I am told that 
they have even compensated supermarkets in the U.S. with advertising 
budgets on the condition that they sell only imported products.
  With regard to wool, we need to protect the existing tariffs. 
Australia has a record of vastly over-producing for the market and 
negatively impacting our domestic prices. The current tariffs are 
important to keep in place. As a potential FTA with Australia 
progresses, I am hopeful that we will be able to address these very 
real concerns. Without some acceptable remedy, I will not be able to 
support the agreement.
  A year ago, we worked on a bipartisan basis to pass Trade Promotion 
Authority. This law was employed to pass the two trade agreements 
before us. The administration is to be commended for the successful 
conclusion of these agreements and again I will support both.
  However, it is clear that support for trade liberalization is fragile 
both in the Congress and around the country. I urge the administration 
to work with us and to take steps to build greater consensus and to 
avoid taking steps that undermine that consensus:
  Trade Promotion Authority is a delegation of the Congress's 
authority. The administration jeopardizes future such delegations if it 
oversteps its bounds. This Congress did not vote last year to delegate 
the authority to make immigration policy. The administration must avoid 
such over reaching in the future.
  I continue to have concerns about how rules of origin are applied. 
The Bush administration should insist on a strict standard for 
designating the country of origin of both live cattle and beef. At a 
minimum, the ``born in country'' standard should be adhered to. 
Although I would certainly prefer that we work with our trading 
partners to obtain a ``born, raised, and slaughtered'' standard for 
designating the country-of-origin of beef. This latter standard 
reflects the current country of origin law in place in the United 
States. This tighter standard is advocated by the major farm 
organizations in our country in addition to cattle ranchers and 
consumer groups who all believe this is a better definition.
  Last year, we put top priority on helping those Americans who are on 
the losing side of trade. The administration made an agreement with us, 
but to date the administration has not honored that agreement. TAA for 
Farmers was supposed to be operational 6 months ago, yet has still not 
gotten off the ground. The Health Tax Credit was to be made available 
and advanceable this month, yet only 22 States have made the 
appropriate steps. More importantly, a number of technical corrections 
to the program have been stalled in Congress and the administration has 
not helped advance them. These technical corrections are essential to 
ensuring that the targeted workers, which we agreed on, receive their 
much-needed health benefits. The wage insurance program for older 
workers has remained completely dormant and the administration has 
taken no steps to implement this program.
  Since the beginning of 2001, more than two million manufacturing jobs 
have been lost. I strongly urge the administration to join with us and 
let's use the replacement of the FSC regime as an opportunity to 
promote U.S. manufacturing jobs.
  We must recognize that there is no ``one-size-fits-all'' approach to 
dealing with labor and environmental standards in other countries. 
While I applaud the provisions included in these agreements, they 
should not, I repeat, should not, be perceived as some sort of template 
for future negotiations. The conditions of countries in Central America 
are significantly different than those in Chile or Singapore and should 
be treated as such.
  We need to have strong enforcement of our trade laws. Currently, for 
example, the United States International Trade Commission is reviewing 
the section 201 tariffs in place against injurious imports of steel. So 
far, the temporary restrictions have provided some mills the time 
needed to make modest steps towards recovery. Repealing these measures 
now, however, would greatly undercut this moderate success, and I 
therefore urge the President to maintain these safeguards for the full 
three years.

[[Page 20508]]

  Finally, today is a good day for relations between the United States 
and our friends and partners in Singapore and Chile. By strengthening 
our economic ties, we have benefitted the people of all our countries 
and encouraged a mutually supportive partnership that will benefit all 
aspects of our bilateral relationships.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I support swift passage of the U.S.-Chile 
and U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Acts, S. 1416 
and S. 1417, respectively. These are the first in what I hope will be a 
long list of trade agreement implementation bills necessary to enact 
trade deals negotiated and signed by the President under the authority 
granted him by Congress last year.
  Stemming from the Trade Act of 2002, which included Trade Promotion 
Authority (TPA), agreements such as the two before us are helping to 
reestablish U.S. credibility in the area of trade. The President and 
his administration are now able to more freely negotiate, encouraging 
countries once reluctant to begin trade negotiations with the U.S. to 
come to the table. The U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement and the U.S.-
Singapore Free Trade Agreement are prime examples of the United States' 
commitment to free and open trade. I hope they provide a launching pad 
for new trade agreements with key partners in every region of the 
world.
  Our staunchest allies and most important trading partners have had 
reason to doubt our dedication to the free trade principles we have 
long advocated as a driving force of prosperity and stability. A series 
of short-sighted, protectionist actions in recent years has jeopardized 
our relationships with our most important trading partners. That makes 
enactment of these bilateral free trade agreements even more important.
  These agreements may not have a dramatic economic impact in the 
United States, but they are sure to yield benefits to American 
consumers and businesses. Enactment of agreements such as those before 
us help us regain our credibility and leadership in championing free-
trade principles around the world. I hope they set a precedent for more 
aggressive liberalization of our trade with other nations in Asia, 
Latin America, Africa, Europe, and the Middle East.
  I commend Ambassador Zoellick for his efforts to bring these free 
trade agreements to fruition, as well as for his commitment to 
exhaustive consultations with Congress. Our agreement with Chile is one 
more step towards our goal of a Free Trade Area of the Americas, on 
which we all hope to see greater progress. Our agreement with 
Singapore, a key ally in the war on terror, will hopefully help propel 
future trade liberalization in Southeast Asia, one of the world's most 
dynamic regions.
  As it stands now, Singapore is our 12th largest trading partner, and 
our largest trading partner in the strategic region of Southeast Asia. 
This agreement would eliminate many barriers to trade and investment, 
and improve market access and opportunities for U.S. goods and 
services. In addition, this agreement would provide regulatory reforms 
and transparency, two key components in establishing the strong ties 
and trust necessary for trade.
  Implementation of the negotiated agreement with Chile would place us 
on an equal footing with the European Union and Canada, which already 
enjoy their own FTAs with Chile. Despite having to play market access 
catch-up, our farmers and ranchers will enjoy duty-free access to 
Chile's markets within 12 years; and computer and other information 
technology products, medical equipment, and other goods will gain 
immediate duty-free access.
  Throughout the negotiating process, environmental and labor matters 
received considerable scrutiny. The FTAs address these concerns through 
provisions laid out in both agreements that call for Singapore and 
Chile to provide a high level of environmental protection, and require 
each nation to endeavor to improve upon their laws where necessary. 
Each nation is to reaffirm its obligations as part of the International 
Labor Organization and strive to make sure its laws reflect the labor 
principles therein.
  These negotiations and the agreements they have produced are a good 
start towards accomplishing Congress' purpose for passing the Trade Act 
last year: an aggressive agenda to liberalize trade with key partners, 
producing comprehensive agreements which reduce barriers to trade, 
providing tangible benefits to American consumers and businesses, and 
reestablishing our credibility and leadership in championing free trade 
principles around the world.
  I am, however, concerned that immigration provisions contained in 
these trade bills set a bad precedent. Although I support the spirit of 
these provisions, I strongly believe that changes to U.S. immigration 
policy should be thoroughly debated in Congress and such modifications 
do not belong in trade agreements negotiated between our government and 
other nations. I discourage their inclusion in future trade agreements.
  Overall, these are fine examples of what Congress intended when we 
passed TPA. I hope we will soon see action on free trade agreements 
that are currently being negotiated with Australia, Central America, 
Morocco, Southern Africa, and others in the not too distant future. I 
also would like to see the Administration take concrete steps to 
liberalize trade in the greater Middle East, in effect operationalizing 
the President's call for a free trade area there within a decade.
  Finally, I hope that the administration, with Congress's support, can 
make significant progress in the next round of global trade talks this 
fall. Global trade liberalization through the World Trade Organization 
is the most effective and efficient way to bring down barriers to 
trade, the best way to open the markets of key trading partners in 
Europe and Asia, and to enforce free trade principles. The conclusion 
of economically meaningful bilateral trade agreements, coupled with an 
aggressive campaign for global trade liberalization, will reestablish 
our credibility and leadership on free trade and energize the American 
and global economies. America and the world will be better off as a 
result.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, a year ago, with the support of American 
agriculture, Congress approved legislation granting trade promotion 
authority to President George W. Bush. The President has demonstrated a 
strong commitment to expanding the American economy by actively 
engaging in an aggressive trade strategy. This strategy includes 
negotiations with Chile and Singapore, regional efforts with the Free 
Trade Area of the Americas, and the Central American Free Trade 
Agreement talks, and with the World Trade Organization.
  Congress has had unprecedented access and consultation with 
negotiators, resulting in agreements without hidden compromises or 
concessions. Public hearings in the Senate and the House have enabled 
agricultural groups and others who have a stake in these negotiations 
to make their views and interests known.
  Both the Chile and Singapore agreements passed the other body last 
week by a substantial margin. It is now time for the Senate to approve 
the agreements.
  The U.S./Chile agreement provides important new opportunities for 
America's farmers and ranchers. Chile is a market of more than 15 
million people with an open and progressive economy. Both the European 
Union and Canada already have free trade agreements with Chile.
  Our negotiators were successful in their efforts to eliminate duties 
on more than three-quarters of American agricultural products within 
the first 4 years. The agreements also contain a safeguard provision 
which will help prevent surges in trade volumes. To discourage the use 
of nontariff barriers, a sanitary and phytosanitary working group will 
ensure that standards of inspection and food are based on sound 
science.
  The U.S./Singapore agreement has the positive effects of freer and 
fairer trade and they make this agreement worthy of support as well. 
Singapore has become our 11th largest trading

[[Page 20509]]

partner and provides the U.S. services sector with fair and immediate 
increase in market access.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for both the Chile and Singapore free-
trade agreements.

                          ____________________